Slashdot Mirror
LimeWire Sues RIAA for Antitrust Violations
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes to tell us that in a recent court battle, Arista v. LimeWire, LimeWire has filed counterclaims against the RIAA for 'antitrust violations, consumer fraud, and other misconduct.' From the article: "LimeWire alleged that the RIAA's 'goal was simple: to destroy any online music distribution service they did not own or control, or force such services to do business with them on exclusive and/or other anticompetitive terms so as to limit and ultimately control the distribution and pricing of digital music, all to the detriment of consumers.'"
That explanation basically places subjective authority entirely in a judges hands.. This reminds me of the language from the "INDUCE act", except applied to frivolous lawsuits.
Notice how no lawsuits levvied by the wealthier interest in such cases are tossed out, but a class action lawsuit alledging numerous breaches of labor and antitrust laws against wal-mart is tossed out without a second thought.
Ahh.. have to love how congress completely skirts the issue of bribery by allowing the judges to take the suitcases full of money.
Souter ruling eat your heart out!
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
"Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted"? I'm fairly sure that the RIAA quitting its frivolous and overbroad lawsuits would be granting much-needed relief.
LimeWire's lawyers are exactly right. Read the claim -- they cite an RIAA conspiracy "to destroy any online music distribution service they did not own or control, or force such services to do business with them on exclusive and/or other anticompetitive terms so as to limit and ultimately control the distribution and pricing of digital music, all to the detriment of consumers." That's pretty much what happened and continues to happen; you can complain that nobody forced LimeWire to break the law, but that doesn't in any way get the RIAA off the hook for blatantly anti-competitive practices (and LimeWire's attorneys are right that unlicensed content sharing is the inevitable consequence of those practices).
I see. Calling for the murder of a certain group of individuals is actually a joke. I'll have to remember that next time.
What a knee-slapper!
As much as I wish someone other than a file sharing software maker was running the ball on this play, it's still a big deal for someone to be bringing up antitrust issues as a plaintiff against the RIAA - even if it's only as a "counter plaintiff".
For the time being, I say forget who LimeWire is and what the majority of their users do; get behind them in this. Whether LimeWire prevails in their defense pales in significance compared to the importance of these counterclaims.
IANAL of course.
Pi Ran Out
I'm glad to see someone finally attempting to take the RIAA to the mat on this one. There probably is some substance to the allegations, and it certianly would do a good job of airing the RIAA's dirty laundry, since this counter claim will entitle LimeWire to all sorts of discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Unfortunately....
This is a very poorly written counterclaim. It reads like a junior-high anti-RIAA manifesto, not a pleading appropriate for a federal lawsuit. For example (this is all taken from the counterclaim):
"27. Counter-Defendants' latest attack on such 'disruptive' technology is not new, for history shows that when new technology is invented that potentially disrupts the exclusive distribution channels content owners are accustomed to and profit from, they usally attack such technology with a vengance"
"28. This case is but one part of a much larger modern conspiracy to destroy all innovation that content owners cannot control and that disrupts their historical business models."
Now, I know allegations set forth in a pleading do not require specifics (that what discovery and trial are for...to prove facts), but c'mon. These are extraordiarily sweeping generalizations. Further, LimeWire may have problems actually proving the RIAA is attempting to destory "all innovation", as allegation 28 claims. I imagine that they are attempting to use this pleading as some kind of a manifesto, but that is not appropriate for a court of law, and virtually ensures limewire will not survive RIAA's motion for summary judgment on the counterclaim.
Fortunately, pleadings can be easily amended, and I hope LimeWire will amend them so the legitimate issues can actually have a chance to be litigated. Such sweeping allegations do little to set precedent, even with a summary judgment motion (as a smarter litigator would lay out more specific claims, largely precluding any precedental effect); nonetheless, it makes the anti-RIAA cause seem childish and devoid of intellegent argument against the RIAA's monopolistic practices.
Wow.. you surprised me.. you managed to completely salvage my respect for you =).. I do not consider you so aweful as you painted yourself to be. Congrats, not many people can do that.
but as for this:
I'm flabbergasted that someone who claims to be a pussy liberal
The terms "pussy" and "liberal" do not belong in the same sentence.
As this applies to me.. think about the fact that I said what I thought needed to be said even though it will probably put me on some kind of paranoid watch list.
As this applies to all liberals...
"liberals" are the people who in 1776 signed a document declaring themseelves traitor to the crown of the most powerful nation on the planet, then proceeded to confront them on the battlefield.
Sometimes courage is shown by choosing not to enter conflicts, by choosing to leave things be, or by choosing to take the necessary time to think things through before jumping head first into them, even though the situation may pose a significant threat.
You want cowardice.. how about the conversations we hear from fox news and the republican administration about how we "must" give up liberty for security..
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
"Are you saying murdering these people is the solution!? OMG I haev to go piss myself with laughter that anyone in history can think that at some point a group fights another because it is the only way to regain any form of balance!"
Listen - I am NOT saying we have to kill the RIAA, but think about what he purposed, which was kind of a joke, by the way.
The RIAA has WAY too much power in influencing the way people recieve musical art. They have lobbied to create laws that were originally beneficial to musicians and themselves. Now it is becoming apparent that the laws to protect Michael Jackson from me releasing Bad at the same time as him and making a shitload of money (Might be a bad example, since I can't moonwalk), have a side effect.
The side effect is pretty much that everything is owned by the artists, who sell their rights to companies. So now you can't do what you want with the art you have, you have to obey whatever rules the companies put on you. Some are good and protect the musicians from having everything they do be free. Some are bad, the worst of which are going to great lengths to destroy the idea of art, and turning it into a brutal business, which in turn is destroying the art itself.
As new distribution comes into play, we have much less need for these companies, yet they have put in a framework to make us dependent on them. The companies uses are greatly reduced, but they are unwilling to find other ways to make money, and instead use large sums of reserve cash to influence our government. They in turn influence us, under penalties that are totally detrimental to our lives, to get our music from the companies reguardless of how rediculous it is. They also control the musicians by the same way.
So the RIAA has a lot more pull than you do. They can RUIN PEOPLES LIVES, and you can't do anything except live by their rules.
Well folks, this isn't new to the world. It has happend thousands of times in recent history. Luckily we don't need to resort to violence. Right? That is what the law is there for. I think you see what I am getting at now.
As George Carlin has said, "The game is rigged, there is a big club, and YOU ain't in it". Despite being funny, it is true, and it is sad. The sentiments of one of the people in this thread that said that killing someone in the RIAA is really that bad does make sense, until you realize that they are ruining the lives of thousands of people, and they don't care. They really don't.
Sure, relax and don't go kill people, that IS a good thing. It is good for the people who are not in control, because it makes us feel safe. And it is good for the people who belong to that big club because it ACTUALLY MAKES THEMS SAFE.
You take it, I don't want it...
You're too quick to dismiss downloading as illegal. I don't believe that has been determined yet, but I'm not a lawyer.
Downloading music is a great way to try before you buy, so you don't get suckered into blowing your allowance on some one-hit-wonder crap band's whole album. Its a great way to explore different music and discover new bands, other than the "top 40" you might hear on the radio. If you had to buy every new CD that came out in order to hear new music, no one could afford it (maybe if you were really rich and bought them from allofmp3.com... maybe).
The "legal" download sites (iTunes, etc) rip off the consumer by selling an inferior, DRM-crippled product at close to the same price as the packaged CD. The music is typically tied to the computer, or to a specific brand of player, whereas ripped CDs can be played on practically any device.
It hasn't been conclusively shown that music downloads displace sales. On the other hand it has been shown that people who download music tend to buy more music than people who do not download. (Personally I don't download music and I RARELY buy music, since napster's demise (the real one, not that sorry-ass service exploiting the name). As far as I'm concerened the whole recording industry can go fuck itself until they pull their heads out of their asses and stop impeding technological and cultural progress).
And the media, which is mostly owned by the same companies that own the recording industry, is strongly biased in favor of the recording industry, as evidenced by their use of the terms "legal" and "illegal" to describe the various download sites. So its understandably difficult for people to see the other side of the issue; that maybe copyright laws were enacted not only to make a small group of record executives into billionaires, but also to foster creativity, encourage the spread knowledge, and support the public domain.
From what I see, there are 2 kinds of music stores: the ones who have been sued by the RIAA, and the ones who have yet to be sued. Meanwhile they're laughing at us in Sweden.
blog
The RIAA is running scared. Thier stranglehold om the music industry is about end. THis is good. Not becasue the RIAA is EVIL, but becasue it is in my opinion Stagnant. The best artists it seem never get a good break as oftwen as it seems. THe interent is just beginning to open the floodgate on what is available in Music. The RIAA does not have control over what people are listening to any more and the music industry will change for the better. The people who take adavantage of the internet will profit for the good of us all. The RIAA is still trying to hold the status quo and is terrified of what the internt lets people do. Pick and choose the music THEY THE CUSTOMER wants. The actions of the Anti-trust suit is the defense of the individual from the dying Dinosaur on a rampage trying to stay alive. The RIAA NMust change with the times and accept what is happening or it will die a slow painful death.
You know, I am just establishing an international, standardized computer network. But it is not my fault if people keep feeding that chain with spam or child porn on the other end. I'm just keeping the supply chain running, how am I supposed to control these things?
Indeed.
The bands producer, copyright owner and the band does not want their high quality songs freely shared over internet. It is their choice. They produced the music and they can decide what to do with it.
There _is_ Magnatunes.com for example where bands/artists agree to freely share via creative commons license and offers higher quality downloads (pure PCM) if you pay.
There are independent artists who doesn't give heck to copyright system and offer their music free via Bittorrent telling people to buy if they like it. That is another system.
There is no excuse if band does choose standard copyright, if you got their high quality full song unless they offered it for free, you are a thief. I mean apologies but it is the real deal.
You are defending piracy and you whine about DRM. Wonder why DRM appeared?
.. they now insist on slapping DRM all over everything... This would be like me selling you a house but denying you the right to open any exterior or bedroom doors. . .
I wrote an argument in a decss/DMCA case. The analogy that I used was a book in a safe. The rights holder was selling you the book and the safe, but claiming monopoly rights (under copyright law) to the combination, which it would only license to you for an additional fee, further claiming that if you managed to obtain the combination from a third party you were not legally allowed to use it and also claiming that you were only legally allowed to open the safe with the combination. Because they had a copyright on the combination you could not blow your own safe even though it was your own property.
This was not a direct infringement case, such as p2p file sharing. Property rights in the book and the safe were undisputed by the rights holder. You had bought them. Had reciepts and everything. Neither were rights to actually read the book in dispute. If you steal a book you have commited larceny, but have not infringed upon copyright if you read the stolen book (the copy of the book is perfectly legitimate).
Naturally I argued that property rights gave you, well, ya know, property rights and that certain provisions of the DMCA actually acknowledged these rights; as well as others, under copyright law.
The judge actually used my analogy in his finding, but completely ignored all of the arguments, did not address them at all; and ruled that the DMCA prevented you from accessing the book by any means other than a licensed copy of the combination, even though you owned both the safe and the book, simply because the lock existed.
So, anyway, under this ruling if you buy a house with an electronic security system that is constructed very cleverly, just so, yes, you could not only be legally prevented from using the doors, but prevented from installing a new door to get into your house. The ownership rights to your house would be trumped by a copyright.
But yes, you'll sure still be expected to pay the taxes on it.
KFG
I figured this out the other day.
The eventual plan of the copyright cartels is this: First, continually lobby Congress for longer and longer copyright protections. That way, nothing ever falls out of copyright.
As time goes on, the cartels will buy up all the copyrighted content they can, from individual content producers. Not all content producers will be willing to sell to the cartels, but many will.
As the amount of copyrighted material piles up, it'll be harder and harder to produce something which doesn't resemble other copyrighted material, most of which will be owned by the cartels.
So the cartels will sue (or threaten to sue) the individual content producers for violating their copyrights -- and the deal they'll offer is either to buy the content for a pittance (and drop the lawsuit), or to take it all in the lawsuit (which they will have little trouble winning, most of the time).
The end result is that the cartels will control almost all copyrightable content. The only material they don't control will be the content that's been produced so recently that they haven't had time to sue the creator yet.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
The Federalist party died in 1816. The Whig Party died after 1856. So the current two political parties have been remarkably stable especially given the ideological shifts after the Civil War (when the Republican Party abandoned it's abolitional roots) and in the 1950's when the civil rights movement caused a massive ethnic shift in the two parties. I think third parties would be more effective, if the "all or nothing" style of elections were revised to a proportional system at the national level. As it stands, I don't see a stable system with more than two parties or for that matter, less than two.
This is one of the best /. posts I've seen for legal interpretations - a lot of lawyers are explaining things in a manner that is educational for those of us not versed in law.
Kudos to all of you so participating.
I am sure this has come up before but I need to ask:
If the RIAA sues me because my IP address was noted sharing content, is it reasonable to say:
"You can't assume it was me - I have a wireless router running for my laptop and didn't set up encryption because
or
It's likely that a number of other people are using my connection at any given time."
Wouldn't this pretty much make it impossible to flag you as the guilty party then, especially after you received notice that you were being sued and removed all traces of the p2p program and illegal materials from your system?
This sig contains a manual self-destruct. Kindly please put your foot through your monitor in 8 seconds.
The American system is a two party system. Now, the good and bad of that can be argued. On one hand, it is good in that it keeps extremist out of power much more effectively then a European parliamentary system. Not only does the American system make it damn near impossible for an extremist to win with its winner take all style, but even if a few extremist do win, there isn't a reason in the world to work with them because you don't need to form coalitions. Because the legislative and executive branches are rarely all ruled by one party (as it is the case now), there is also a drive to the center because a minority veto is so easy. Even when all branches are controlled by a single party (as it is the case now), there is almost no reason for the party to work together. This is exemplified by the current US government. Republicans control everything, yet they have consistently failed to pass any sweeping legislation because they are simply not all that united.
Both systems have their advantages and disadvantages. I personally like what a two party system does, but not how it does it. I like a divided an inefficient government that needs a super majority to get anything done. I like that it is easy to break party ranks. I like that it pushes everyone to the center. I don't like that it results in dividing the nation down the two. I don't believe that everyone is either socially conservative and free-market leaning or socially liberal and more socialist leaning. I don't believe that political beliefs have Nazi's on one side and Maoist on the other and the only thing we do is pick a point in the center.
All of that said, as it has happened in American history, the two parties are not permanent fixtures. Public discontent can and has wiped them out. While it is certainly an uphill battle to wipe out a party, it is not an impossibility. It isn't even all that hard. Further, you don't even need to wipe out a party. Parties are very fluid in their ideology. There is no "democrat" or "republican" ideology set in stone. The two parties swing and slide all over the place. The democrats were the ones that held up the civilian rights movement and used to be the party of the south, yet I would hardly make the claim that they still hold those beliefs.
If the electorate really wants change, it can get the change it wants. It can either remake an old party anew or simply replace an old party. Either way, the vote still works. The majority of people who vote make the rules. If the rules need changing, the people have the power to do it. The two party system makes it harder then it does in Europe, the idea that the electorate is helpless is simply wrong. The people can change the government. With so few people currently voting, they don't even need to a majority to do it.